Ethics, Law and Torture

Arresting Valentine Button by webcarve
Create a pinback button On zazzle
View other Major Holidays Buttons

Glenn Greenwald sets it up.
Binding U.S. law requires prosecutions for those who authorize torture - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com:

International treaties which the U.S. signs and ratifies aren't cute little left-wing platitudes for tying the hands of America. They're binding law according to the explicit mandates of Article VI of our Constitution. Thus, there simply is no way to (a) argue against investigations and prosecutions for Bush officials and simultaneously (b) claim with a straight face to believe in the rule of law, that no one is above the law, and that the U.S. should adhere to the same rules and values it attempts to impose on the rest of the world. Last week, Paul Krugman stated about as clearly as possible why this is so:

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

It's just as simple as that. Once Eric Holder stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and once a top Bush official used the word "torture" to describe what the U.S. did at Guantanamo using authorized techniques other than waterboarding, the "discretion" to investigate and prosecute disappeared-- at least for people who believe in the most basic precepts of the rule of law and equality under it, Western principles of justice established at Nuremberg, and the notion that the U.S. is bound by the treaties it signs. There simply is no way to argue against investigations and prosecutions (and no way to argue that we should use torture-obtained evidence against Guantanamo detainees) without fully rejecting all of those principles.

Precisely. And let us not fall into the trap of thinking this is a matter of political viewpoint, although, tragically, the breakdown is along political lines. But let us remember that if we leave these damnable precedents in place, if the international community does not demand an accounting in support of US "Leftists" such as Greenwald - then the precedent will stand that "It depends on who's doing it."

Here's the fundamental principle. Torture is an affront against human dignity. It is not just accidentally or coincidentally a form of terrorism, or a contributory factor to terrorism, it is and has always been a primary MEANS of state terrorism. It is always the first choice of oppressive states, and the fact that Saddam Hussein used torture was one of the favorite talking points for removing him from power.

Well, it was and remains a persuasive argument. And the fact that it is legally impermissible under law to NOT investigate and prosecute is a fortunate thing for the Obama administration, for if they present this fact to the American people, they can ensure that justice is done without undue political fallout.

Not that it should matter. Nor should it even be a question, any more than it should have ever occurred to the Bush Administration to USE torture in the first place.

But then, perhaps we should consider why it is so easy for the US to consider the use of torture and condone the abuse of authority in the first place. Perhaps citizens should consider why they condone domestic excesses that are not all that much different, save to degree, and factually much greater in scale.

But if the moral argument is insufficient, I point to a larger and very urgent concern: the economic argument.

As Kevin Phillips outlines in his book, Wealth and Democracy, a primary cause of the decline of the last three Western empires (Spain, Holland and Great Britain) has been bankruptcy through militarization.

As each of these empires became wealthy and powerful, it attempted to maintain its world position through military spending, each time imagining that its wealth and power were limitless. In each case, the vast military expenditures crippled the empire, leading directly to its decline. It should be obvious that the United States is well into this process of damaging itself with its own military expenditures. With a $10 trillion debt (much of it to countries that could easily use it against us) and an annual deficit that has been running close to $500 billion, the time is ripe to push for a maximum reduction in military spending (that could reduce the average deficit to zero). While our nation does not have moral right to forego those aspects of the military budget that pay for past wars (primarily veterans' benefits), transforming our military from an offensive weapon into an institution for national defense would be an affirmation of American principles stated in our founding documents, while saving our country from the historical course of all empires that turn toward militarism.

I am by no means a pacifist, nor do I discount the importance of a professional defense establishment. But it's utterly insane to devote more than half of one's economy to the miliatry. It's a stunning waste of money and human talent. The price of ignoring Eisenhower's advice to beware of the "Military-Industrial complex" has been high, and it's corrupted society to an extent that easily rivals the issues that faced the citizenry of the Eastern Roman Empire.

But the deeper problem, as David Hilfiker illustrates in the above-cited article, Now I Understand Why They Hate Us, is realizing that US culture has come to unquestioningly accept that force based approaches are the first and best way to deal with any issue, a mindset that expresses itself in everything from education to economics. The cultural cure for any complex problem is simply a bigger hammer.

And this leads to situations that are not merely made worse by the means of response, not merely more costly, not merely appalling from the viewpoint of honest ethical understanding, but which create situations which would allow Sun Tsu to kick the US and it's collective assets with a girl scout troop.

That is one significant reason why I have decided to return to Canada. While by no means a perfect nation, Canada is neither blind to the consequences of it's own action nor enslaved by a military-industrial fetish. It has a small, but extremely professional military and a government that has as it's primary ethos this motto: "Peace, Order and Good Government."

By contrast, the United States has not had peace, outside or inside it's borders, for more than fifty years. It certainly has no order. It cannot even make a pretense of good government. Yet these three things are things citizens of any government are entitled to, as a matter of obvious first principles; these are the things that make it desirable to have a government in the first place.

I'm fortunate in that I could choose to walk away. I decided that, while I have great hope that the United States will re-invent itself in a positive way, I could see many ways in which that process could fail, or take a great deal of time and cost much misery. I admit to being unwilling to be part of an army of change, particularly when I question the very oppositional paradigm that expresses.

I'm deeply concerned that the United States has become, in fact, two nations, at the very least, with entangled but uncommunicative populations that are unwilling to even consider, much less respect the viewpoints of others. I don't think it unfair to describe the culture of the United States as being violently insane.

I have come to the point where I doubt the utility of trying, even in my own small way, of resolving the difference between the various camps. Right now, I'm watching Barack Obama trying very hard to be seen as a president for all Americans. I'd advise him to make such an effort - but to expect it to be rejected and for his political and social enemies to emerge very quickly.

I would also advise him to see them as such - for in truth, the views generally described as Progressive and the views of the religiously-motivated Right Wing are antethetical. Actually, the views of the religiously motivated domininous right wing are antethetical to the Constitution, to the Enlightenment and to the very concept of individual liberty. I do not see this as a tension between Liberal and Conservative, but far more starkly; I see it as a matter of right and wrong.

Anyone who could even possibly consider the justification of torture, much less brag of it and promote it as something that enemies deserve should have no place within any rational political discourse, within any proper civilized society, regardless of political philosophy. Some things, some ideas are simply wrong and they are wrong for very concrete reasons - because these ideas always lead to the downfall of the civiliztions that employ them.

Graphic Truths

A Clear Day in Greenwood.

The record-setting winter blessed us with beauty that persists even as the frostbite fades into memory. Yes, frostbite. It's not something I ever expected to be concerned about. My tiny little camera, a thirty-dollar bubble-pack special can't help but capture postcard images. It's an astonishingly beautiful place to live. Oddly, I never thought I'd ever feel at home away from the coastal rain-forests or a vibrant city such as Vancouver, and yet I miss neither. Our little apartment over the local pizza shop - humble accommodations by any standard - feels like a castle.

Oh, winter is not without it's downsides for my wife and I, as an autistic-spectrum person I find fitting into a new place and a new routine to be a prolonged and difficult thing. But here, I look forward to that, being outside and getting to know at least a few people; something I never could say about Reno. Reno has it's own beauties - but while I see them, they just don't speak to me.

Meanwhile, I am dealing with the dregs of the blahs - something that happens to me every year, from November to January. Oddly, as difficult as it has been due to tight finances and being trapped inside for the most part, it's been one of the least difficult in years. I'm used to feeling like I've lost my way; I feel that way right now. The difference is, somehow I know that I will find it again, and that when I do, I'll find more than what I seem to have misplaced for the moment.

Coming up, I expect to write more about Canada and Canadian affairs, climate change and green approaches to real problems. Call it a more immediate and practical approach to the craft of ethics.

I plan to take a lot more pictures, and do more artistic work based on them. The last eight years, from the viewpoint of my writing, has been a depressing litany of pointing out mistakes before they happen, and then watching as mistakes even more profound than I expected play out. What I must hope at this point is that enough people, worldwide, have had their noses rubbed in it long enough and hard enough that I don't feel the need to add more words to the pile of warnings.

I suppose I am fortunate in that; that this blog has never had great influence; locking me into a career as prophet of doom. It's been depressing enough to do it on a pro-am level and I'm blessed that I'm not obligated to a community or bound by economics to considering a course that has become increasingly depressing, as this Jerimiad will prove.

Nonetheless, I'm sure I'll continue to have occasional fits of the disease and, as usual, an "I told you so" post a year or two later. The use of torture comes to mind, as it becomes clear that the mad and evil decision to use torture may well have doubled US casualties, by motivating far more dedicated opposition, fueled by quite genuine and earned hatred of all that the US presence in Iraq represents.

All of this was quite predictable. I predicted it, as did many others, but we were shouted down. Well, one fruit of that is that I, and many others, no longer give much of a damn about what happens to people who are still so transfixed by fears and bamboozled by their willful prejudices that they can defend torture or rationalize the other evils so dear to the Religious and Political Right in the United States, and mirrored elsewhere.

There comes a time when it becomes clear that each of us have to be responsible for our own choices and allegiances; that we must and allow others to make choices that are incompatible with the choices we make. Both history and legend tell us that these cusps have a way of working out; that those who are fixated on evil and consumed by fear tend to destroy themselves. The trick, of course, is finding a way of not being nearby when they do, and muddling through while the mess and bloated corpses are cleared away.

And that is why I am here in Greenwood. It's a place where people do real things that matter directly to people they know. It's also a place that depends on tourism, so it's tolerant of difference and values creativity. And when the waters rise - as now seems the inevitable result of allowing willful foolishness and religiously-mandated stupidity to triumph over science, common sense and even the plain words of the Bible.

80 million US dollars were spent by the Mormon and Catholic churches to force Proposition Eight down the throats of Californians - a campaign that depended upon conscious lies about constitutional rights and Biblical truths. I'm not going to bother documenting them, others have done it better and Google is your friend.

The idea that any Christian - or indeed, any ethical being, any person with any spiritual component to their personality, any appreciation at all for the priorities laid out in all the great spiritual traditions, could choose to spend that money to oppress others, to take away basic human rights of association, to criminalize love and institutionalize their homophobic fears in the teeth of their clear duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless and comfort the afflicted - these are persons who have nothing to to say worth hearing.

They have made themselves by their own actions irrelevant to people interested in becoming better people, unworthy of speaking for any God worth knowing. If they are sincere in their beliefs, that's even worst; a liar who KNOWS they are a liar can always choose to tell the truth.

These betrayals of faith are viscerally appalling, revolting; the exact opposite of the loving-kindness Christians are called toward. And it's so easy, so tempting and so dangerous to hate them for it. But, the fact of the matter is, hating them for the evil they have become harms only ourselves; further, it distracts us from doing anything useful. It traps those that hate them in the same place those worthy of that hatred have chosen to place themselves. So, let us not argue whether it's heaven or hell - let us simply choose better company.

Proposition 8 will be over set, or it will be ignored, and it will be linked in many minds with a great many other moralistic diktats about who and what free people may or may not do, under penalty of law, for such laws make the idea of law itself contestable. When the law is seen by lawmakers as a means to an end of imposing their own visions of a "proper social order" regardless of the interests and needs of actual people, when it becomes clear that it's simply a means of impoverishing these people and enriching those, than what virtue is there in abiding the law? People tend to try to do the right thing, more or less, and if the law ceases to be a reliable guide, they will seek out other guides that are more useful to them.

And indeed, it's quite possible that events will overtake such abstract concerns; the Earth herself has a say in this; rising waters and whirlwinds trump law and culture every time. Volcanoes incinerate the just and the unjust. Rivers shift their courses whatever laws we make, and the sun shines on everyone, with or without the blessings or curses of those who think they have the right to decide who is good and who is bad based on their essential natures. And as for the economy - well, those who concentrate on real things - bread, cheese, grapes and jeans will fare better than those who concentrate on money in the belief that money is something more than a symbol for transactions of real value made by real people doing real things.

Your family is your concern, mine is mine, no amount of legislation can change that reality. We love and live as we do, irrespective of who others think we should, and almost all of human literature is concerned with conflicts between what others think what should be as opposed to what actually is. People who are capable of being distracted from the rising waters by such trivia will be swept away by the changes that will come despite their arguments, their faith, their denial and their prejudices. There are important things to be concerned with, little time and much to be done. There are those who will tell you that their doctrine demands that you sacrifice that time and attention to their aims. If you listen to such fools and parasites, the outcome will be as tragic as is as predictable.

Ethics and the morality that derives from it's study teach us how to co-operate without violence, without friction and oppression of one another; they teach us how to live without being seen as worthy targets for retribution or ill fortune. There IS no greater issue than that, even to those of us who believe in the precept of "as above, so below."

Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred; policies of violence and moralities that teach that other people should be hated because "God does" should be obviously oxyomoronic. Anyone who claims moral or religious authority, anyone in a position of power over you who seeks to "divide and conquer" by setting this group against that group - well, it's time to stop the madness.

When the people entrusted with the task of instructing us in issues of morality give us advice that MUST lead to suffering and pain for some for no greater benefit than allowing some others to feel smug and self-righteous, they deserve nothing from you; not even your opposition. Don't become their enemies, they thrive on hatred and opposition. Just ignore them. Shun them. Smile and walk away.

As they rail and froth about what hells await those of us that reject their council, I can think of nothing better to do,no more appropriate fate for them to be reduced to preaching to the choir.

They have made a corpse of New Orleans and scattered those who were it's life to the winds, forgetting who founded New Orleans and how it happened to become what it was. Now, it's simply an investment opportunity for those who see no sin in profiting on the shattered dreams of poorer and better people - who will be better people elsewhere, taking the essentials of that culture everywhere they are scattered.

Will those who stood aside and let New Oreleans drown, and then stood in the way of those who ran to help, are such people be wise enough to create a new city worth living in, or will their greed blind them, and cause them to lure more greedy fools to live in physical denial of reality? A foot or two added to the flood walls will be insufficient to a changing, less forgiving climate.

They have already removed those who are innocent; they have stolen and smashed that what was good. Those who remain, and who celebrate that they have banished the "evil" and "licentiousness" that was the heart of New Orleans will have their reward - for a time, putting their trust in FEMA and The Army Corps of Engineers.

Call it foreshadowing. Call it an object lesson. Call it a test of civic duty that deserves an F-minus. This is the result of people given power who did their duty as they saw it, to the best of their ability. The standards they hold as sacred cause them to claim it as a good outcome.

These are the omelette makers who claim the right to break YOUR eggs whenever they see fit. So you have to ask yourself - why do they deserve your attention, much less your loyalty and efforts on their behalf? They exist on your tithes and taxes, your donations and your hours of volunteerism that you give in the belief that this time, they will do better.

Why should they? They have gotten fat and lazy on doing exactly what they do. You have not held them accountable, so why should they do otherwise?

Me, I'm above sea level, living in a place with an old and rooted community. The rape of New Orleans made me realize that a place that has had it's social compact deliberately shredded and betrayed by those entrusted to preserve those relationships cannot prosper. It made me realize that there was no place within the borders of the United States safe from that fate. New Orleans was a bipartisan failure, a triumph of corruption the result of a culture that has come to tolerate bad rulers for the fear of worse ones. Even worse, they'd prefer to be ruled than to accept the responsibilities that citizenship in a Republic. "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Nothing remains for it to New Orleans to prosper with, for people foolish enough to have caused the problem in the first place surely cannot come up with solutions that starkly demonstrate their own foolishness. Oh, perhaps one or two, but we are speaking of thousands of very stupid people in very powerful positions who's positions and power depend on maintaining their various charades.

Therefore, New Orleans is no exception. It's what will happen to those who trust in those who have proven to be untrustworthy.

Ultimately, it's people that matter, not buildings, not cities, not nations nor monuments and certainly not churches nor their doctrines, save that these things exist in service of people and their relationships. My efforts and social participation go toward efforts that promise good outcomes.

Those who think that some of us matter less, that some people are expendable "for the greater good," that it's justifiable to kill and maim and torture in order to maintain a particular "life-style" when there are not merely alternatives, but far BETTER alternatives - we cannot afford to indulge such people. Never mind such abstracts as "good and evil." These are people who's decision making process is so impaired that they are starkly dangerous to be around.

You may ask, "what can I do."?

You can withdraw your support from anyone who supports or extols the moral values most starkly illustrated by the people who brought us all an economic collapse and to the brink of a world war induced for purely theocratic beliefs. Stop expecting them to do their jobs honestly or well; stop pretending that things will work out for the best without you. Stop buying the crap they tell you you absolutely must have, stop listening to their media and for heaven's sake, stop giving money to their prophets.

Concentrate on making things in your immediate area better. Put your money, your efforts and your attentions there; close to home. Stop trying to live up to the examples of fools; people who genuinely believe that appearances, perceptions and beliefs exist apart from their necessary foundations; that credit is the same as wealth and that a false promise is just as good as an honest handshake.

They believe that their visions will allow them to make choices on your behalf better than you could. That their morality is better than yours. That they are wiser, better equipped, better situated and more blessed by God than you. I suppose they have to believe that, just to get through the day. But there is nothing written by man or God that says that YOU have to, and much written says that only a damned fool would.

What do events tell you about that presumption? They have gained great power already. What does that tell you about how well they will manage even more? Have things gone as they promised in public? Have they gone as they seemed to expect? Have they told you the truth about what they did, and why they did it?

And on that rhetorical note, I'll count this as a week's worth well done - for what that's worth.

A NeoConservative Arguement in FAVOR of Universal, single-payer health care!

If bloggers could win Pulitzers... this post would be on the short list.

Just in case you are too far to the right to ever dip a toe in at Echidne's place, dig this. I sincerely wish I'd written it myself. I know, as from time to time I've tried various aspects of the argument out, to little avail. So I shall merely cheer-lead.

Skylanda, one of several high-quality writers holding down the fort over at Echidne of the Snakes has written a piece (one of a series) on the issue of health care that needs to be read by every literate citizen. Illiterate citizens are encouraged to plead with literate persons in their households to read it aloud to them.

Today, you’re going to hear something new and different. Today you are going to hear this bleeding heart, tree-hugging, west-coast, San Francisco-born, ivory-tower progressive make a neo-conservative argument. Free market, pay-your-own way, private enterprising, classical neo-liberalism. Hold on to your wallets, we’re going for a ride.

This argument concerns the question that underlies everyone’s hesitation with heath care, no matter what your political orientation: how are we going to pay for it. Covering every child, woman, and man in America is an expensive proposition, and paying for it is the key stumbling block between dreamy idealism and real movement forward toward universal health coverage.

A tall order, one would think. She pulls it off with the grace of Billie Jean King beating Bobby Riggs in the rematch.

Anyone who wants to answer this question - from the most laissez-faire neo-liberal to the farthest left socialist - needs to understand one thing, and one thing alone: we already are paying for it. No health care economist disputes this one common understanding: Americans pay more - per capita and as a percentage of our gross national product - for health care services than any other industrialized nation. And for that sacrifice, we cover less of our people, we live with the gripping national fear of health care insecurity, we measure out at some piss-poor rankings on standard outcomes measures like infant mortality and childhood nutrition. We pay more money for the great privilege of getting less health.

Pulling these three forces into alignment is - in this one opinion - key to founding a sustainable, affordable version of universal coverage that Americans can live with and thrive on. And here is the sinking realization that should haunt every American when it comes to health care: we already pay too much for too little. We are getting the rawest end of the deal in the developed world. We now have a choice: we can continue to bury our heads in a very expensive sort of sand and believe that a fractured system with ever-increasing premiums is working to our advantage, or we can start to wonder what would happen if we took all that cash - that enormous chunk of the GDP now wrapped up in health care - set it all into one collective system, redistributed without the skimming of profit or the redundancy of hundreds of parallel systems, and set about planning a rational health system for the next fifty years. Could we do it? It would be one of the toughest, most contentious enterprises America could take on…just a hair less tough and contentious than our current health care system, I would wager.

But, you say, would I have to pay higher taxes?

Well, that’s a good question. I submit that if you are paying insurance premiums in America today, you are subjecting yourself to one of the most ludicrously progressive tax schemes on the planet. You may consider yourself middle class (or otherwise), but the public good known as the nation’s health is resting on your shoulders - not only are you contributing directly to the private pooled premium fund, you are also paying federal taxes to support others on the Medicare-Medicaid axis and a variety of other programs. And if you are not paying health insurance premiums, it’s time to buck up and do your share - in the proportion to which you are able, so that you may draw resources that you require. There is only one way to accomplish this: taxes.

If you worry that only the wealthy, the documented, or the honest will pay their fair share? Well then heck, make it a sales tax - no one walks the American soil without buying something. If you want to ensure that every person stepping foot on American earth deserves their fair share of the health care pie because they contributed their piece, sales tax is probably the most thorough (though probably not the most equitable) way to do it.

And if we paid for single-payer health care out of an increased tax, what would that buy you to make it worth your trouble? You could do away with your health care premiums. Stop wondering if Blue Cross is going to double your deductible this year just for the heck of it, or triple your premium because you just found out that persistent nagging cough is severe asthma, or deny your coverage because you had that condition before your employer switched plans last month. You would buy portability, security, and predictability - ratcheting the stochastic impact of health care costs out of your emergency budget. And if you get what you expect out of a single-payer system, you actually have a voting say in who stays in office to guide the system - unlike your coverage today, where you only have a voice in Blue Cross’ policies if you are a major stockholder. And remember, head for head, every other developed nation in the world - by controlling the profit motive and the redundancy issue - has managed to pull off some form of access that covers more of the population for less cost than we have. We are already paying the piper; now is the time we demand that the piper hand over the goods.

An argument worthy of space on Lew Rockwell. (And I went to the extent of sending them the link.)

One thing I learned well in debate class is that if you can make an affirmative argument from several contrasting viewpoints, the odds of it being a solid premise go way, way up. That makes this a very important bit of argument indeed. One can make the same case rather easily from a Progressive Libertarian viewpoint, but for most Libertarians, the Neo-Liberal argument is close enough for government work, though I would add that without universal, transportable health care, one's freedoms and liberties are being unacceptably compromised, in terms of individual choice and freedom to choose varieties of employment and calculated, creative risks. Worse yet, it's not even arguably due to an economic compromise. We can indeed afford that degree of liberty, since we are actually paying for it. Therefore, who and what is getting in the way, and why have we not done something about such an obviously violent trespass against our most basic liberties?

Ok. Go read the whole thing at Echidnie's - so I get the traffic props. :P

Then please, drop by her blog - Loose Chicks Sink Ships - and subscribe to her feed, like I did. I think she's gonna be worth keeping an eye on.

The Project for a New American Peonage

It seems a bit narcissistic to reference my own words, but 'twas a long post and this point may have gotten lost in the underbrush.

Graphictruth: My Muted Obamamania: "Reality is not optional in Politics. We have had far too much post-modern bullshit, and quite frankly, it's making ME want to cling to the hard cold reality that a handgun represents. A gun is simple, understandable and comforting in times of trouble - even when it's an utterly useless comfort. Even when you know perfectly well that your troubles are not ones that can be dismissed with 'a whiff of grape-shot' or rightfully blamed on the symptoms of malfeasance and greed, such as outsourcing and illegal immigration.

We have the right to expect leaders who understand that it's their job to keep things from getting to such a point where we start to think wistfully about deploying Occam's Machine-Gun."

And there's another point in there that I wanted to sharpen a bit more.

We do have a right to be bitter about the results of being exploited and pandered to for political gain as a substitute for actual competent, compassionate and intelligently conservative management of our interests on our behalf. Hell, conservative voters have completely given up on the idea of government or their taxes bringing them any benefit - so long as it benefits nobody else, and so long as their frustrations are expressed in making the rubble jump somewhere far away.

But it's not enough, and it's certainly not worth three four dollar gasoline and milk at $3.50 when your wages have been stagnant for a decade or two.

"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." I think P.T. Barnum said that, and such philosophies were the root of an amazing and improbable fortune.

Now, let me conflate this with something I learned at my father's knee - he being a traveling salesman - was that the only way to sell was to totally convince yourself that what you were saying was true. The more dubious the proposition, the more skill it took to do that.

Of course, an honest person would look at this and think, "well, that's easy enough, don't sell things people won't want and don't need."

But look around you. Or just turn to the Home Shopping Network for a minute or two, and you will realize that they are not selling you the crappy cheap bauble or appliance of dubious utility, but rather a "lifestyle," a sense of security, of prosperity, of entitlement; of belonging to an "in group."

Do not think for a moment that those feelings deliberately raised in your hind-brain and attached to your choices in shopping, fashion, entertainment or politics are in any way genuine. It's a scam, and I can tell you that, because as I said, I learned to do this at my father's knee.

Now, the beauty of this from the viewpoint of our supposed Lords and Masters is that if we are indebting ourselves for a sense of false community with an an illusion prosperity and security, we will never actually build real communities that can provide real prosperity and security.

For instance - five families can individually go broke trying to maintain a cardboard McMansion apiece - or they could pool their skills, labor and buying power to build five real solid houses that would be more suited to each and far more valuable in the long run. If you want to learn all you need to know to do this - spend some time volunteering for Habitat for Humanity.

A substantial something - a solid home, a paid-off vehicle, a meaningful job doing what you would do anyway - is a far valuable than any appearance of prosperity built on debt, even if it seems like you are "less prosperous." And when this choice puts money in the bank at interest, you have options that no wage-slave can even imagine.

This is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning, and yet somehow we trip over something that is even more basic. Our need for community is such a powerful thing that it can completely override our self interest and make us fools for slavers and demagogues.

Even unreasonably well-paying jobs and tremendously important and meaningful careers may have a huge downside. If it places great stress on you either because of it's nature or because you absolutely hate doing it, you are actually converting your health into money - at a net loss. The same is true for jobs that have unavoidable health consequences or irreducible risks. If you are investing your future well-being into maintaining a paycheck-to-paycheck "lifestyle," you are freakin' hosed.

That is the mass delusion we have bought into - that it's better to go into debt to have new shiny crap than something that does what you need with total reliability, and that it is sensible to buy into a community on the condition that you continue to pay into it month by month with either money or labor.

A real community gives an unconditional crap about you; will take care of you if you are ill and raise your children if you die. A real community will not need to refer to a contract to do the right thing in either case because at the most basic, a community is an extended family, composed of individuals who depend upon one another and who know precisely to what degree, in what ways and with what resources each other individual may be presumed upon at need.

These ARE "Traditional Family Values." It has nothing to do with gay marriage, patriarchal structures, religious choice or morality. It's all about shared trust and mutual self-interest; whatever works to that end is Good, and whatever gets in the way of that is Bad.

Right now, there's an awful lot of Bad getting in the way of applying those values to practical outcomes.

It would be tragic enough if our fixation upon shiny trinkets and false profits (pun intended) were merely a common delusion of individuals - but in fact it's infested our government and our entire leadership class. Indeed, I rather imagine that there are quite a few people living "the good life" in "hunt country" with all the trappings of old money that are in fact leveraged to the eyeballs, to the point where any questions raised about ethical choices merely provokes bitter laughter.

Far too many of us have found that we are in situations where, seemingly, we have lost the option of even WISHING to be ethical people living blameless and productive lives. Even our religions have become mechanisms for shifting blame; if they had to rely on the good will of honest people, they would certainly be unable to support their institutional selves at the level of luxury and influence to which they have become accustomed.

But it's never too late to make a choice. The answer to all councils of despair and accommodation is this; YOU may not be able to "make a difference" if that effort depends on other people changing their lives and making choices you think they should make. If you wish to bring about a positive change in your life and the lives around you, change your life. Don't try to force others to change for your benefit - it's rude and it never works.

Enticements succeed where even naked force will fail, which is why capitalism and the free market is such a powerful idea - one that persists in spite of all attempts to co-opt it's power for the benefit of plutocrats and Party Members.

This is where I return to the example of five families building five homes, or five businesses, or five cars - or any such obviously mutually beneficial thing. Am I advocating socialism or some sort of Commune? Hell, no! It's pure Capitalism with direct conversion of sweat into equity.

Realize that it's always most profitable to get a direct benefit from your own effort. The use of money to pay for labor always translates into doing more work than you would have had to do. Ideally, you wish to trade labor for labor, not labor for money. But in order to do that effectively, there must be a large enough talent pool. Money is only a means to that end, as is credit. This is the point that both doctrinaire Capitalists and Communists miss to the point that they make practical forms of economic co-operation with either emphasis impossible in practice.

Money is simply stored labor. Labor is a form of capital, then. The more skilled the labor, the more valuable it is - but only if it can be applied to create real and persistent assets. Some types of labor do not produce "real" assets that are of direct value, they are "intangibles," such as art, music, literature, but they are also the things that make our lives livable and keep us entertained while our hands are busy.

Both are tools that you need, but should try to avoid using to avoid minor inconveniences and slight frustrations.

The real key here is when you work at a job in our current economy while using the proceeds of that job to service debt and "maintain a lifestyle," you are not free. You are a serf - tied to a job by means of debt. This is all the more true if your medical coverage depends upon that job.

This is a very damn expensive way to provide medical care, since it divides the risk pool into many shallow puddles, and indeed, quite a few corporations are whining about the huge expense and the need for universal health care.

But in fact, the price is rather low, compared to the thugs, dogs and fences that would otherwise be required to maintain a captive work-force.

So, here's my question: "Who are you working for?" Look at your budget, look at your real assets - the ones that you truly own. Look at your savings and future security. Look at your access to health care.

Are you, in fact free? Run the numbers. If you cannot afford to just say "shove it" and walk away from your job, you are not free and you cannot meaningfully call yourself a free citizen.

The most fundamental reason why the Franchise was first limited to free white property owners is that Free White Property owners were the only people economically independant enough to be contrary as a matter of principle.

The ideal of a proper government is to expand the meaningful franchise - which means expanding that degree of liberty as widely as possible.

Right now, the average person cannot afford principles. You probably cannot say "no" to outrageous presumptions, whether it be uncompensated overtime, sexual harassment or committing acts you know to be immoral, illegal or just plain stupid. You cannot insist on either doing the job right, or not at all. And these days, it's becoming iffy as to whether or not you even have the "right" to insist on being paid.

Let's go back to those five families. Consider all the capital they would build up by working together to provide comfortable homes for themselves. At some point, about the time college comes around, they have solidly feathered physical nests and money in the bank. One or more of those children is probably well-suited for a career in medicine. Doesn't it make sense to pool together to put one or two through medical school in return for a promise from that person to provide primary care to all five families? Hm. And a business degree or two might come in handy...

Of course the shiny new professionals will need things to do and places to do them ... so while those kids are in school, the families literally build a practice, and now, from the start of bare earth and sweat, we are on our way to building real wealth, because again, rent is simply money down the drain. If rent is to be paid, it should be paid TO the enterprise, not come out of it.

These are real old-fashioned family values. Me first, family second, clan third and country last - because each of those things depends on all needs of the more basic unit being fulfilled fully and first. Anything less than that is, in fact, a hidden debt or a concealed tax.

If you are sacrificing yourself for your family, your job, your cause or your nation, you literally have the cart before the horse, for none of those things will do all that well if the foundation of them - the individuals such as you - are not properly rewarded and fulfilled in doing so.

Real freedom requires that we invest in the freedom of others.

Ron Paul, Change and Obama

As some or all of you know, I no longer endorse Ron Paul for President. That was a very reluctant choice, for at heart I am a Conservative. Indeed, I am a some senses a Paleo-conservative, even as is Alex Jones.

I have come to the decision that for the moment, at this particular time, what is needed is another FDR. As a reflexive conservative, I of course despise all that Franlin D. Roosevelt stood for - and yet as an American - and indeed, as a Canadian, I stand upon his legacy.

As a Canadian-American, I have come to the realization that at some points in time, one must allow Radicalism to reign, in order to rationalize, regulate and restate it in terms of the status quo ante.

For some time past - and I include the Clinton years in this - we have haplessly drifted rightward, to the land of "I don't give a fuck about you."

Taken in isolation, Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents of the last Century - and all the things he is given credit for, the balanced budget, "Welfare Reform" and the surplus are things that are honestly things that are triumphs of a deliberately Conservative leadership. One can also point to the economic prosperity under Clinton - and the corresponding growth in enterprises such as privatized prisons - as being indicative as the objectives and fruits of a genuinely Conservative president.

Clearly, when Bill Clinton is held up by the Right as the Great Demon of the Left, it is time for the People to demand a correction toward the Center.

That is what happened with FDR, and that is what is going to happen with Obama. Yes, he is more "radical" than what we are accustomed to - but in point of fact, "radicalism" and "conservatism" have never been strange bedfellows.

Scratch a genuine conservative and you will find an idealist, one who genuinely believes that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Deceleration of Independence are all fundamental to that which is quintessentially American.

American Conservatism is built upon extremely radical ideas - the sovereignty of the individual, as advised by the wisdom of crowds and the power of open and honest debate among equals - regardless of social advantages.

Ron Paul has overstepped his place if he genuinely desires to be President. Or rather, he would be wasted in that capacity, would find it an infuriating and demeaning exercise in compromise and would, alas, find himself unable to implement or even effectively express his best ideas.

Further, I'm afraid that in order to become more universally appealing, he would have to revise his views regarding abortion and the rights of women.

And yet, and as much as I disagree with him on these points, I find his refusal to cede a matter of principle in order to gain a scintilla of political momentum to be genuinely endearing. Indeed, the less I find Ron Paul to be eligible as my choice of president, the more I find him to be one of the few people I really wish to know.

I endorse and support Obama. That does not mean that I particularly care if I like him as an individual.

I LIKE Ron Paul. And the more I like him, the less willing I am for him to be thrown under the bus of History.

Let us face it. FDR, whatever else you may say about him, was a martyr to the cause of these United States. He chose to sacrifice what remained of his life for his country, and I think it a good thing that we have enacted term limits so that no others may answer the call to that degree.

Did he made the choices I would have? No. Not. At. All.

Ever.

And yet, grudgingly, I must admit something - his choices worked out about as well as my vision would have in theory. But in fact, his vision worked out in practice. So, as radical as FDR was at the time, HIS vision brought us a stable status quo that held far, far longer than his tenure; indeed, it lasted until the Neocons who desire to dismantle every vestige of it.

And as Dr. Phil is wont to say: "How's that workin' out for you?"

Ron Paul represents a very old tradition within American politics, one that predates Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and even the majority of Whigs. He represents the best of both Jefferson and Hamilton who, if they agreed on anything, agreed upon a common standard upon which disagreement could be based.

Both Hamilton and Jefferson were men of substantial property. Indeed, in terms of effective wealth and influence, both would be billionaires today. Each gained their wealth by different means, and each viewed that wealth in different ways, but neither could conceivably be considered to be unbiased by it. And as far as I know, both knew the importance of real, hard, inarguable cash money as a foundation to the economy.

Further, and obviously, I think both would concede that the Federal Reserve is largely a scam.

I cannot go farther than that. For myself, I think it a scam that has achieved real positives - but I think also that it's time has come and gone.

Further than that, I giggle shamelessly in the face of an economy based on gold or silver, though I think currency minted of these metals would go a long way toward reestablishing faith in it's "basement value."

That is to say, I would approve of a dollar that is worth no less than once ounce fine silver, as constitutionally defined - but I would not at all object to it being worth so much more that we regularly use paper Yen as small change.

Or so I believe in my ignorance, and in this regard, I commend Ron Paul to Barack Obama, who probably knows no more about the function of currency in the economy than do I.

What I do know - and this is for sure - is that neither man has the entirety of understanding required to repair our economy and our personal self-confidence. Even including John Edwards' perspective, I come to this conclusion so I must say that if Obama cannot include Ron Paul in his official Cabinet - he should include him in his Kitchen Cabinet. The man has earned that place, if only by making a Fed chairman cry in front of Congress.

"They" need us more than we need "them."

Over the last, oh, fifty to a hundred years, there has been a great effort toward shaping a general belief (and legislating to place stumbling blocks in front of those who have contrasting views), that for every problem of humanity there is a corporate solution that is better than any other means of dealing with that problem.

Even when some of those problems would not exist, had there been no corporate interest in solving them.

You may may suspect this is one of those "go back to the land" pieces that crop up like dock and dandelions in your yard. It IS an apt symbol - freely reproducing edible greens being considered the "enemy" of inedible, chemical-intensive grass.

But illustrative as it is of the principle, the principle is not going back to subsistence agriculture, or indeed, subsistence anything. Corporations exist as they because individual productivity has become very high indeed, and there is a great surplus to sustain their excesses.

And while many really do pay their own way, many are frankly parasitic, forcing choices upon us that are individually disadvantageous.

Consider, if you will, the twin evils of Asparatame and High-Fructose Corn Syrup.

If you live in the United States, and you want a soft drink, you get your choice of two substances that may well be worse for you than the sugar they replace. Neither one is possible to produce without the sort of huge, complex infrastructure that only a corporation could possibly afford, made possible not by honest market competition but by corrupt regulation and corn subsidies.

But you could choose to drink tea or coffee instead. Then you still get a choice of sweeteners, ranging from honey to sugar to saccharine to Aspartame and Sucralose.

Or you could simply do a bit of research on the web and find out how to carbonate your own water in bulk, or simply from a small appliance on demand. That's not a paid link. It just happened to show up on the first page of my Google search, lucky them, as I was thinking that the most difficult ingredient in pop is the bubbles. It used to be quite the difficult enterprise - back when soda was a novelty. Nowdays, though, the technology is actually quite simple, and probably accessible to anyone with a few wrenches and a Home Depot card. Soda Club obviously realized this ahead of me.



Jones Soda got started that way, realizing that the absence of honest soda in a wide variety of flavors was something they could build a business on. And now they have gone to pure cane sugar as a replacement for HFCS sweetener, again due to direct demand.

To sweeten sodas, and a multitude of other food and beverages, companies typically use the sweetener high fructose corn syrup (or HFCS for short). But here at Jones we’ve decided to do things a little different. Thanks to phone calls from our fans, consumer research, and one passionately loud Jones Soda Receptionist, we are tossing out the HFCS. You may have seen that our 12-ounce cans of soda are now made with pure cane sugar, and by mid-2007 all of your favorite Jones products will be available with real sugar.

Soda club goes a step further, saying "what would you add to seltzer water if you had fresh seltzer to start with?" This is a P2P idea, and they expand on it - as does Jones - by maintaining direct relationships with their customers.

Here's what they have to say about sweeteners:

6. How do you sweeten your regular flavors?

Soda-Club regular sodamix flavors contain sugar (sucrose), not high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). While many of our labels do say “sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup”, we have chosen to formulate without high fructose corn syrup and have not yet updated our labels to reflect this fact. The exception to this is Energy Drink, which indeed does contain fructose and dextrose, in addition to sucrose. In addition to sugar (sucrose), regular sodamix flavors contain sucralose (Splenda® brand) and some also contain acesulfame potassium. If you have dietary concerns, please read the label of every Soda-Club product before purchasing, available by clicking the sodamix images on the Flavors Galore page of this website. When in doubt, consult with your physician.

Consumer preference rules - when companies don't have any involvement with other companies that would prefer consumers didn't have preferences. It's getting a lot easier for consumers to find out which sort of company they are dealing with and making a silent choice based on that information.

But ven the worst corporation has to produce something of arguable value, or sooner or later it will be revealed as a vast ponzi scheme. Consider Enron.

Alas, this is not true of governments; governments have no commonly agreed objective measure of success, other than "not being replaced." Generally, they maintain a monopoly or near-monopoly on organized force, so they are damn difficult to dislodge, even if they act in ways that would have scandalized the board of governors of the Astoria Corporation.

But even governments can be and will be erased by this sort of philosophical, economic and infrastructural sea-change. When they cease to matter to "the people who matter" - they will no longer matter much at all. And who will be "the people that matter?" Well, that's hard to say precisely, but it's certain that there will be a lot more of those of us that matter, at the expense of the influence of "them."

You see, in life, you get a choice. You can choose to be "one of us," or one of "them." The "usses" are those that share your interests, needs and desires. "Thems" are the folks that "would rather be a hammer than a nail." For a particular sort of aspirant "them", government is the natural choice. While it does not offer the potential financial reward that climbing a corporate ladder does, it offers something better - individual access to power.

That, or one is blessed (or cursed) with a greater than usual need for rules and structure, so one is drawn to becoming a tiny cog among a great number of other cogs, without the need to make any choices at all.

This brave new world brings to light the possiblity of a political and economic universe for each of us that contains no "thems." You deal only with those who you need to and want to, from a wide range of possible choices. You almost never encounter a "them," much less have to submit to them, unless your own personal needs cause you to seek "them" out.

These admittedly simplistic observations do illustrate the unavoidable choice we are all facing - assent or dissent regarding the overriding model for the next age of human civilization - given that some aspects of it are simply inevitable outgrowths of our communications, logistics and transport infrastructure. Whatever we think of the result, a flattening of the pyramids of authority and capital seems both overdue and inevitable, and the righting of the balance will likely be more violent the more government and capital conspire to put off the inevitable with "globalization" strategies that are simply a means to keep power and wealth in the same few hands.

Of course, that's way too complicated for most folks. But that doesn't matter, because that choice will be made, for the most part, by people who don't understand it at all, justified by the words of those who barely comprehend it. (Had they really comprehended what they were saying, they would have written it comprehensibly.)

In the current historical configuration, our technological infrastructures are often taken the form of a distributed network, such as the point to point internet, or the generalized self-publishing features of the web which allow any internet user to produce and diffuse different type of content. Humanity has therefore a technology which has the fundamental effect of allowing the global coordination of small teams, which can now work on global projects based on affinity. Well-known expressions of this is the production of the alternative computer operating system Linux, and the universal Wikipedia encyclopedia. But the over a billion already connected people are literally engaged in tens of thousands of such collective projects, which are producing all kinds of social value. The alterglobalization movement is one expression of a movement born out of such networks, which can globally organize and mobilize without access to the decentralized mass media, using a wide variety of micro media resources.

In the business environment, we see the increasing importance of diffuse social innovation (innovation as an emerging byproduct of networked communities, rather than internally funded entrepreneurial R & D), and we see the emergence of asymmetric competition between for-benefit institutions based on communities of peer producers), which are successfully competing with traditional for profit companies. In addition, for profit companies are now themselves adapting and therefore using practices pioneered by such communities. This is not the right context to explain in detail such trends, so interested readers are referred to the Wiki Encyclopedia at P2PFoundation.Net . We are witnessing a similar process as when imperial slaveholders were freeing their slaves into serfs, or smart feudal lords where sponsoring merchants and entrepreneurs.

Perhaps they were writing for a particular audience. I can write like that too, when I wanna sound all smart and inarguable, but that usually means I'm a wee teense weak on the ground. But never mind the presentation, there is a solid core to this article - and the site.

This is about Peer-to-Peer relationships, which is a strange and bloodless way of saying that the future will be made from relationships of choice between persons, using mechanisms that essentially network around choice limiting hierarchies and authoritarian decision-making processes, and whatever structures that persist from our time into that future will have done so because they have adapted to that new reality.

In other words, I will drink Coke if the only alternate is Pepsi - unless I'm eating mild foods, in which case, I'll have Pepsi - if the coffee is typically bad. But if RC Cola is in the fountain, neither competing soft drink nor coffee stand a chance.

Now, why is RC not in the fountain? It's not because of equipment issues, distribution issues or even cost. It's due to exclusive marketing agreements. Most places get to choose Coke or Pepsi, and whatever other beverages the bottler chooses to hand them. They get a small choice and their customers none at all.

P2P enterprises are about giving your peers - friends, customers, suppliers - what THEY want in exchange for what YOU want. Most often that will be money, but there are other valuable considerations, such as prestige, such as market share, such as "being the best."

For myself, were I opening a food joint today, I'd be tempted to choose "none of the above" and go with making my own designer pop, even though I suspect I'd have to invest more for less return. It would significantly difference myself in a marketplace filled with franchises and "might as well be franchises;" it could well allow me to prosper without a liquor license!

The fact that proper "soda fountain" culture has not reappeared is because it's more expensive and supplies are probably hard to come by, and the old-fashioned technology requred a good deal of skill.

Still, with more modern controls, it could well be the next "Starbucks" phenomenon, when various local and then national and international entrepreneurs realized that people like choices - and LIKE the option of a better than average product.

Incidentally, the very existence of a Starbucks on every corner has raised the quality of American coffee at least two ticks on the "Joe Scale."

Five basic grades: Coffee, java, jamoke, joe and carbon remover. (Author Robert A. Heinlein, Glory Road)

Joe usta be what you got, jamoke in a fancy place. Brewed 80 cups to the pound in a drip machine that hadn't been cleaned in a week, then left on the hob until it was empty, the best one could say for it was that it had caffeine, it was hot and it wasn't actually poisonous. Nowadays, you often find Java, if not actual coffee. The marketplace DOES work, you see, when nobody futzes with it. But that's what both governments and huge multinational corporations do, almost by design - futz with otherwise free markets. But, short of actual force, that is accomplished mainly by restriction on the distribution of and access to both education and information - and both of those are structural issues that the existing order depends on, but did not create and really cannot enforce.

So we can see this as being essentially an emerging, gradual phenomenon, the de-institutionalization of US culture.

Republicans tend to see that as a bad thing, Democrats tend to see that (guardedly) as a mostly good thing, and neither party has any more choice in the matter. Being varieties of authoritarian, both will have to cope with a general decrease in the social value of authoritarian personalties - "decision makers," "movers and shakers" who make wholesale choices on behalf of entire demographics.

They will have to learn to be content with offering choices, instead.

This, of course, brings me to the current political situation, where our only choices seem to be cosmetic and meaningless.

Again, if the choice is between Coke and Pepsi - perhaps it's tea-time!

In other words, concentrate on the aspects of government that affect you and yours and work to change those things so that they either go away or become more benign. This may seem selfish, but if everyone does it, it will all come out in the wash.

And then of course, whenever government is completely foolish or criminal, ignore it when possible, evade it if necessary and resist it if unavoidable. This approach makes a great deal of difference over time; consider, for instance, how greatly the war on drugs has degraded general respect for drug laws and lawmakers - to the extent that entire state governments are at loggerheads with the federal government on this issue. The outcome is quite inevitable in law because it's fait accompli in practice. The social use of marijuana is widely accepted and it's medical use - at least in principle - has reached near universal acceptance, or at least tolerance.

Certainly it's become evident that the risks of growing a little weed for personal use are trivial, even though the potential penalties are draconian; outside of the DEA, few law-enforcement officials can be bothered with that "vice" when there are crimes that really matter.

(Nor does it likely escape the average cop on a night beat during a full moon that more widespread usage of pot might make their job a LOT easier.)

So, take a good solid look at to what degree government affects you, and to what extent the investment of your energy into a national presidential election keeps you from using it in more directly profitable ways.

For most Nevadans, that might be ridding ourselves of Jim Gibbons and his cronies, or working to diversify our energy and economic infrastructures. It may probably boil down further to your county or your town. It used to be that we needed central knowledge bases and centralized decision makers. Now we have the world wide web, FedEx and all kinds of "appropriate technology" options that can be implemented in a cost-effective way on an individual or neighborhood basis - given the proper and appropriately respectful climate of regulation.

So let's see to that.

It's been many years since our elected representatives had to do much personal interaction to get our votes - or lose them. It's time we paid closer attention, and consider how many of them we need at all. Both political and appointive structures are hierarchical, and governments as well as profit-making entities will HAVE to adapt to a new reality of Peer to Peer approaches - or wither away.

Not in the happy fun Marxist wet-dream sense. As in being entirely replaced, made irrelevant, bypassed; becoming a vestigial, ceremonial residue not unlike various European monarchies or the Canadian Senate.

What WILL the "top ten," the cheerleaders and the homecoming queens (of all genders) do with themselves?

Well, as people persons, they should do rather well for themselves in a Peer to Peer world. They will just have to do it differently. Along with the rest of us, who may well have to employ them as our surrogate peers.

In the intermediate term, consider what your candidate actually says about the issues that matter to you. And by "Says," I mean what they say in practical terms, not the airy generalities and High Concept specification. That's all very fine and good, of course - if it has a practical implementation.

You see, our new and bravely webbed world means that there will be a change in how business and government is done, for good, for ill, and likely both. The only question NOT at issue is whether change will occur; it will occur just as surely as the growth of a good road network made the Roman Empire possible. Possible - but not inevitable, other than there was a need for some entity to maintain roads and trade nexi. It could just as well been a federation of trade guilds as a consolidation of power in the hands of traditional authorities.

Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your country can do for you. Because in a Peer to Peer world, your peers are just as likely to be in Afghanistan as next door, so a government that presumes to pick and choose your peers - and your friends - is not acting in your interest at all.

Considering the expense of the damn things - national governments - they are overdue for an audit both in concept and practice. That is to say, if they wish to continue being of service past the first decade or so of this new millennium.

UPDATE: I investigated Soda Club, since I stumbled across it, and found out that I COULD become an affiliate. So I applied, and it will appear in my sidebar as a permanent sponsor. Why?

Not because I expect to make a ton of money. It's because I believe you are known by your friends, and what they stand for. This firm seems to me to be representative of the thrust of this whole article, and what Graphictruth is all about. I mean, I'd LOVE to make a dime or two off this, don't get me wrong. But it's more about investing in the idea, even if it's just vicariously.

Here's their link. And here's the link to their Affiliate page, just in case you might like to spread the word yourself.

Love soda? Get a Soda-Club soda maker! About the size of a coffeemaker and even easier to use, you’ll make fresh seltzer and soda at the touch of a button, with no clean-up. No more lugging, storing and recycling. Over 25 great-tasting flavors.

And their diet varieties come with "Splenda" instead of the other. In case that matters to you. Me, the idea of being able to make fresh juice-based drinks is even more attractive. Alternately, you could carbonate your Kool-Aide - or even your gelatin desserts.

The point is, you get to choose, and the marketing is not about making you want something in particular, but wanting to become empowered to choose what YOU really want.

Even if it's Jones Soda's "turkey and gravy" flavor.